Trump’s Commonsense Rule on Immigrant Welfare Use

Naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles, Calif., in 2013. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)The welfare state is much bigger than just cash benefits.

The newly finalized rule about immigrant welfare use is 837 pages long, but it boils down to two things: Foreigners who can’t pay their bills shouldn’t be allowed to move here, and “welfare” doesn’t just mean cash benefits.

As to the first: The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act, which, among other things, excluded anyone who was “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That principle — the “public-charge doctrine,” as it’s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation, including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws.

Advertisement

Advertisement

But the exclusion of “public charges” didn’t start in the 19th century, but well before that, when immigration law was handled by the states. In fact, preventing the immigration of people who couldn’t support themselves was the subject of the very first immigration law ever passed in the colonies, in Massachusetts Bay in 1645. It’s not too much to say that the public-charge doctrine is the founding principle of American immigration policy. So those arguing for the admission of foreigners (other than refugees) who can’t earn enough to feed their own children without taxpayer subsidies are arguing for a radical break with 400 years of practice.

The second point involves a more recent issue. In 1996 Congress passed welfare-reform and immigration laws that sought to put more teeth in the existing public-charge rules. These measures had no lasting impact on the share of immigrants using welfare; within five years, the rate of immigration welfare use was right back where it had been before the changes. Today, some 63 percent of households headed by non-citizens use at least one welfare program, including an astonishing 80 percent of non-citizen households with children.

Advertisement

Early on, George Borjas identified two reasons for this: Some states used their own funds to cover newly ineligible immigrants, and many immigrants seemed to have naturalized to maintain access to benefits unavailable to non-citizens.

Advertisement

But a third reason may have been the Clinton administration’s dishonest definition of welfare. In order to minimize the impact of the Republican Congress’s 1996 changes, the Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency. In other words, an immigrant using food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunch, and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting, and his welfare use would not affect his future green-card and visa applications.

Ending this Orwellian practice was long overdue. Officials will now also consider SNAP (food stamps), most Medicaid, Medicare Part D subsidies, Section 8 housing, and other programs. But, as Jason Richwine pointed out, there are still means-tested, taxpayer-funded welfare programs that are not covered by the new rule, such as free school lunch (and breakfast), WIC, the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit.

But even if every possible poverty program were included, and the rule were enforced in the most stringent manner possible, you’re still going to end up with relatively high levels of immigrant welfare use so long as the federal immigration program selects people based mainly on family connections or random chance. This doesn’t mean a filter like the public-charge doctrine is useless, but its effectiveness is likely to be limited. In fact, as my colleague Steven Camarota wrote in these pages, recent cohorts of new immigrants have actually been getting more educated, but they haven’t been doing any better in terms of poverty, income, and welfare use.

Immigrants shouldn’t just use welfare less than the native-born — ideally, they shouldn’t use it at all. Past attempts at building a wall around the welfare state have enjoyed only modest success at best, and I don’t expect this latest effort to be an exception. The only way to truly fix this is much lower overall numbers and much higher standards.

Recommended Articles

Most Popular

To a certain kind of Rachel Maddow viewer, there are few more titillating preludes to a news segment than the one she delivered Monday: “If you have not seen it yet, you are going to want to sit down.”
Maddow’s story began, as many of her stories do, with President Trump, this time focused on his hotel ...
Read More

Federal prosecutors in Washington have recommended that criminal charges be filed against Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, and the Justice Department has rejected a last-ditch appeal by McCabe’s lawyers, according to a report on Thursday by Fox News. This clears the way for what appears to be ...
Read More

Early Monday morning, Donald Trump tweeted: “94% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. Thank you!”
Where the president got this specific number remains a mystery. Recent polls by YouGov put his GOP approval roughly ten points lower, and Gallup, which has tracked Trump’s popularity since he ...
Read More

Making the click-through worthwhile: Why last night’s Democratic presidential primary debate was so bad; a suddenly hot issue that surprisingly never came up last night; an important and under-discussed detail about that Trump resort in Scotland; and a very important appointment for this weekend.
The ...
Read More

When John Bolton left his job as national security adviser -- President Trump says he fired him, Bolton says he quit -- the secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, weighed in. “The president’s view on the Iraq War and Ambassador Bolton’s was very different,” he said. Yes, they were very ...
Read More

If you haven’t read Politico’s lengthy investigative report on Jerry Falwell Jr.’s conduct as president of Liberty University, published earlier this week, I’d urge you to do so. It’s a sordid tale of the self-dealing, personal ambition, and extreme intolerance for dissent that’s long been an open ...
Read More

In a 2018 midterm election that didn’t give Republicans a lot to laugh about, one development that no doubt left them smiling was watching progressives across the country donate $80 million to Beto O’Rourke, in a Texas Senate race that was always going to be a steep uphill climb. Democratic party leaders can ...
Read More